More people get science news from blogs, where commentary shapes opinions.

In today’s media landscape, people are turning to blogs and other online-only media as their primary sources of information on science, and relying less on online versions of traditional news outlets. This transition to consuming science online may be a double-edged sword, according to a pair of professors from University of Wisconsin-Madison. Their Perspectives article in the journal Science highlights the opportunities and unintended consequences that this shift to the web may present, and may force scientists and social scientists to rethink how the science community and the public interface online.

Almost half of Americans rely on nontraditional online sources, and only 12 percent get their science news from online versions of traditional print newspapers and magazines. This trend isn’t just for science news though—sixty percent of Americans turn to the Internet as their primary source of information on general scientific questions. All this time online has an encouraging effect on people’s views about science; time spent online not only has been linked to more positive attitudes towards science, but frequent Web users are more likely to support basic scientific research, even if they see no immediate benefits to society.

But the Internet-driven quest for science information provides some reasons for concern as well. Nine out of ten Internet users rely on search engines to find information on scientific information, but the selection and prioritization of content by search engine algorithms and audience metrics may prove problematic, as they can narrow our options for information. For example, Google’s autocomplete suggestions feature provides the most popular searches, which users often select, making those searches even more likely to appear as suggestions.

This presents an ever-shrinking selection of science news and information. The authors write, “Is the World Wide Web opening up a new world of easily accessible scientific information to lay audiences with just a few clicks? Or are we moving toward an online science communication environment in which knowledge gain and opinion formation are increasingly shaped by how search engines present results, direct traffic, and ultimately narrow our informational choices?”

Even when scientific information is found, the Internet can alter the ways in which it's interpreted. Social media, for example, can allow anyone to influence how scientific information is presented. The news we are exposed to is often presented with cues as to how popular, important, or accurate a given story may be. The framing of a story on Twitter or Facebook may also add information—or misinformation—beyond what the original author intended.

And then, there are comments. They can also add information and misinformation to the content of a story, but some research is suggesting their tone influences how we perceive things. A recent study presented participants with a single balanced news item covering nanotechnology, along with one of two sets of comments following the story. Readers' interpretation of the risks associated with nanotechnology differed depending on the tone of the comments; readers exposed to uncivil comments were more likely to attribute potential risks to nanotechnology.

Social scientists are online, attempting to understand the nature of science journalism in today’s digital, hyper-connected world. The authors write, “Without applied research on how to best communicate science online, we risk creating a future where the dynamics of online communication systems have a stronger impact on public views about science than the specific research that we as scientists are trying to communicate.”

" Readers' interpretation of the risks associated with nanotechnology differed depending on the tone of the comments; readers exposed to uncivil comments were more likely to attribute potential risks to nanotechnology."

Which is why I support Ars' moderation of comments that violate the posting guidelines.

But the new comment rating system is a step too far. I have been rated to the point of my comment being collapsed for comments which were civil, well within the posting guidelines, but simply unpopular. That's simply group suppression of open discourse, and it's what we humans love to do when given the chance.

I often turn to the comments immediately since it's unlikely that the author is always an authority on the subject. Many times the comments can give a much broader context to the article (as long as they're civil).

" Readers' interpretation of the risks associated with nanotechnology differed depending on the tone of the comments; readers exposed to uncivil comments were more likely to attribute potential risks to nanotechnology."

Which is why I support Ars' moderation of comments that violate the posting guidelines.

But the new comment rating system is a step too far. I have been rated to the point of my comment being collapsed for comments which were civil, well within the posting guidelines, but simply unpopular. That's simply group suppression of open discourse, and it's what we humans love to do when given the chance.

I read every collapsed comment regardless...

hmmm... how'd he piss everybody off...?or... what could possibly be so bad as to be downvoted this much....

This reminds me of the concept of a filter bubble. There is a good talk on TED as well.

The whole concept of the online experience being one giant Confirmation Bias experience disturbs me to no end. Know about it and realizing that I'm influenced by it at the same time is of almost no comfort.

This might be because the amount and quality of science reporting of traditional news outlets has plummeted. I used to get science news from "regular" newspapers, but few of them have science sections anymore, and if they do, the articles are few and far between and rather lacking in quality. Online outlets like ArsTechnica seem to have much better journalistic standards.

A recent study presented participants with a single balanced news item covering nanotechnology

Balanced? Or just not tilted too obviously to the viewpoint espoused by the researchers?

Quote:

The authors write, “Without applied research on how to best communicate science online, we risk creating a future where the dynamics of online communication systems have a stronger impact on public views about science than the specific research that we as scientists are trying to communicate.”

Translation: the proles are starting to think for themselves instead of just swallowing what we want them to swallow.

I freely admit I'm a cynical old bastard. If it's on the news, whether the topic be science, or politics, or a cat being rescued from a tree by kindly firefighters, I don't believe it. They lie too much.

I admit that I would appreciate a link to the article as well. I’m very curious about how the population used for the comment tests was selected and how the results are correlated to things like higher education or a regular habit of reading science news online or elsewhere.

As for the tendency of the web to push us to certain science news or certain scientific views, I guess it’s true, but that was true of paper outlets as well, though the specific mechanics of it were of course different. On the other hand, if you know how to search and where to look, the mass of available information on just about any scientific subject is just a few orders of magnitudes higher than what was available 30 years ago (at least in hard science, it might not hold so well in social sciences).

But the new comment rating system is a step too far. I have been rated to the point of my comment being collapsed for comments which were civil, well within the posting guidelines, but simply unpopular. That's simply group suppression of open discourse, and it's what we humans love to do when given the chance.

I would agree that the new rating system seems to have significant problems. I've noticed some surprising comment ratings. I'm not sure what to attribute it to: group think, sock puppeting, or possible corporate manipulation. The bottom line is that I've lost trust in Ars' rating system.

But the new comment rating system is a step too far. I have been rated to the point of my comment being collapsed for comments which were civil, well within the posting guidelines, but simply unpopular. That's simply group suppression of open discourse, and it's what we humans love to do when given the chance.

I would agree that the new rating system seems to have significant problems. I've noticed some surprising comment ratings. I'm not sure what to attribute it to: group think, sock puppeting, or possible corporate manipulation. The bottom line is that I've lost trust in Ars' rating system.

the amount of rated comments also drops off significantly after the first page of comments

“Without applied research on how to best communicate science online, we risk creating a future where the dynamics of online communication systems have a stronger impact on public views about science than the specific research that we as scientists are trying to communicate.”

As opposed to the good old days, where scientific research was communicated accurately and extensively to every individual. Or was that when the evening news would tell me which household object scientists said would kill my child today?

For every comment thread that derails a reasonable article, there seem to be 10 that offer intelligent counterarguments or factual corrections to the author, and that is so much healthy than pronouncements from authority on topics a journalist often has no formal training in.

Personally, I find it really fascinating to watch debate in the comments evolve on stories that come up repeatedly over time: Something like tax rate: first one group will make a claim about how few people pay taxes, and that'll dominate the comments sections of relevant articles. Then a few people will point out that's just federal taxes and list all the other taxes. Then that becomes a common argument that gets used everywhere. There's this cadre of individuals who read and comment across many sites, and talking points and arguments that work on one story get repeated and repeated until the countervailing view comes up with a good counterargument, and the debate shifts again. Each article is a small view into a huge conversation going on across the world.

This topic is pretty interesting. Internet or not, people will often make poor decisions based on their version of "Science". If anything, I'd trust the science from a random person on the internet, rather than the crap-spouting media (Especially TV advertising using "scientifically proven" to sell their wares).

The only true way to be "Correct" is to always have a grain of doubt in what you think is true, balance alternative theories, and select based on the most valid evidence, this usually means scientific reports, journals etc.

That's why you have to find good commenting communities, and do the whole Trust But Verify thing. Branching out beyond sites that are more than echo chambers for your own opinions can be very helpful asa well.

" Readers' interpretation of the risks associated with nanotechnology differed depending on the tone of the comments; readers exposed to uncivil comments were more likely to attribute potential risks to nanotechnology."

Which is why I support Ars' moderation of comments that violate the posting guidelines.

But the new comment rating system is a step too far. I have been rated to the point of my comment being collapsed for comments which were civil, well within the posting guidelines, but simply unpopular. That's simply group suppression of open discourse, and it's what we humans love to do when given the chance.

I read every collapsed comment regardless...

hmmm... how'd he piss everybody off...?or... what could possibly be so bad as to be downvoted this much....

Yeah, I'd be dead if I were cat, etc etc.

Yeah, I uncollapse every collapsed comment as well. I do not like the idea of somebody else determining what I should and should not read. I do like knowing what other people think about a comment, but that should be purely advisory.

I'm conducting a decade+ long experiment on The Free Republic: trying not to get banned at my first comment. That forum is by rednecks, for rednecks. Either you reinforce their bigotry, or you get banned. It's not a matter of trolling, politeness, even harsh disagreement... it's piling in all on the same side, or getting life banned.

I haven't yet found a way of expressing over there an idea I'm OK with without getting the kick. I've tried picking a safer subject, toning down my comments... nothing doing. These guys want an echo chamber, not an intelligent discussion.

I don't know how many such forums exist, and I'm sure there are many as bad on the too-liberal side. But it's disheartening to see all that noise and bigotry taking up the time and space of enlightenment. I think the Internet is making the issue much worse, by enabling people to bypass traditional media and live in whacky forums/sites. There's Fox News too, though ^^

Sadly, this is not only common in science news, but in all news. I think that Jon Stewart's show is mostly funny and often poignant. However, I do not rely on it for "news." I have seen stories, where, sadly many people do.

Trolls ruined the Internet, you can see an excellent historical graph at [link to Rickroll video...]

I think the "vote up" and "vote down" buttons should be renamed to encourage good responses and ratings. For instance "adds to the article" and "off topic". Right now the buttons come off more as "I love you, you're just like me" and "shut up you idiot".

The authors write, “Without applied research on how to best communicate science online, we risk creating a future where the dynamics of online communication systems have a stronger impact on public views about science than the specific research that we as scientists are trying to communicate.”

Translation: the proles are starting to think for themselves instead of just swallowing what we want them to swallow.

I wouldn't ask a non-Russian speaker to translate a Russian movie. I don't ask those with poor math skills to calculate the tip at a restaurant. And I won't take the scientific opinion of those not versed in the topic on which they opine. When it comes down to it, I'll take the scientific consensus over some guy 'thinking for himself.'

The authors write, “Without applied research on how to best communicate science online, we risk creating a future where the dynamics of online communication systems have a stronger impact on public views about science than the specific research that we as scientists are trying to communicate.”

Translation: the proles are starting to think for themselves instead of just swallowing what we want them to swallow.

I wouldn't ask a non-Russian speaker to translate a Russian movie. I don't ask those with poor math skills to calculate the tip at a restaurant. And I won't take the scientific opinion of those not versed in the topic on which they opine. When it comes down to it, I'll take the scientific consensus over some guy 'thinking for himself.'

But when you get a LOT of nonscientists' opinions together, it becomes science . . . right?

The authors write, “Without applied research on how to best communicate science online, we risk creating a future where the dynamics of online communication systems have a stronger impact on public views about science than the specific research that we as scientists are trying to communicate.”

Translation: the proles are starting to think for themselves instead of just swallowing what we want them to swallow.

I wouldn't ask a non-Russian speaker to translate a Russian movie. I don't ask those with poor math skills to calculate the tip at a restaurant. And I won't take the scientific opinion of those not versed in the topic on which they opine. When it comes down to it, I'll take the scientific consensus over some guy 'thinking for himself.'

Well, of course... IF the consensus comes from the science. Far too often these days, what is purported as scientific seems to really just be pushing the scientists' political or social beliefs (or whatever the foundation that funded the studies want it to say). Scientists are people too, and if you look back over the history of scientific progress, you'll find many a time when the consensus was flat out wrong.

Then there's the credibility angle. Would you ask a Russian speaker to translate a Russian movie... if he'd already proven to be a pathological liar?

Didn't know that from the giant huge drop down Orange Advertisement that took up most of the home page.

Awesome ! There isn't enough advertising on ARS - so please add significantly more flashy distractions for us to ignore the content with. Thanks.

Quanticles wrote:

I often turn to the comments immediately since it's unlikely that the author is always an authority on the subject. Many times the comments can give a much broader context to the article (as long as they're civil).

Depends on the context and the community. You still have to weed through the "smart people" that think they are experts on everything.

Quote:

In today’s media landscape, people are turning to blogs and other online-only media as their primary sources of information on science, and relying less on online versions of traditional news outlets. This transition to consuming science online may be a double-edged sword,

Not to mention the traditional news outlets crying foul about how current events are copyrighted and they're losing revenue. LOL

Quote:

All this time online has an encouraging effect on people’s views about science; time spent online not only has been linked to more positive attitudes towards science, but frequent Web users are more likely to support basic scientific research, even if they see no immediate benefits to society.

It get diluted when those same people ONLY rely on some Blogger's opinion and do not cross reference or consult additional sources to back up or verify what they are regurgitating.

So we get fun stuff like Global Warming and how we need to reverse and control it as a pseudo-real issue.

Non informed people posting opinions - then other non informed people reading those opinions and badly repeating what they heard - basic gossip. Just shows one of the down sides of the Internet.

Look, comments sections are for one purpose and one purpose only: boosting click/hit count and time on site figures. In other words, makin' money.

Let's face it: Joe Idiot from Bumblef**k, Dumbass County, has no business commenting on science news. Or any kind of news, for that matter. So why have a comments section?

Money. There's no other reason.

Far from providing useful or additional information, the comments section of most sites resemble nothing so much as a zoo's primate exhibit after a particularly vigorous feces-hurling session. Cheapens the discourse. Weakens the message. And by raising personal, uninformed opinion to the same level - literally on the same page - as the news being delivered, ultimately quite dangerous to public understanding of scientific work or current events.

Yeah, I uncollapse every collapsed comment as well. I do not like the idea of somebody else determining what I should and should not read. I do like knowing what other people think about a comment, but that should be purely advisory.

Do yourself a favor and auto-unhide them using the following css in stylebot:

I don't know how many such forums exist, and I'm sure there are many as bad on the too-liberal side. But it's disheartening to see all that noise and bigotry taking up the time and space of enlightenment.

Just a little more ammo for my conviction that comment threads on online articles and news stories are, when they're not actively harmful, absolutely worthless and unproductive. Not a very democratic attitude, but giving an anonymous, accountability-free soapbx to every knee-jerker with a strong opinion just results in pages of empty spleen-venting and rhetoric.

In my observation, requiring respondents to post under their real names helps, as does cultivating a persistent community of respondents. Anonymity, lack of accountability, and lack of investment just promotes trolling, shilling, and ranting.

If you have a correction, email the author or site. If you have a dissenting opinion or an opinion you think is worth public attention, do the hard work of convincing an audience that you're credible and join the discourse on its own terms rather than screaming from the peanut gallery. That especially galls me on science articles - you've got people passionately arguing with scientists who peer-reviewed their work and published it with their own names on it, and you've got DingoBob1234, he of the anonymous screen name and completely unknown qualification and credibility ranting in all caps about how they're all full of it. Maybe so, maybe no, and as this article unfortunately demonstrates, some people actually believe it - but that's not an argument made in good faith, and it's not an argument of high quality.

Ultimately, what it's all about is not "building community" or any actual conviction that letting people comment on news stories is a good thing, it's boosting your hits and making your analytics look great so you can sell a few more ads. Which is what it is, business is business and websites ain't hosted for free, but when it starts to cheapen the discourse and sway public opinion...well, what the hell is a news site actually around to do? If all we're gonna walk away with is the tone of the most strident rant, I may as well just get my news from Twitter.

And yes, I'm aware of the irony that commenting on this story entails.

" Readers' interpretation of the risks associated with nanotechnology differed depending on the tone of the comments; readers exposed to uncivil comments were more likely to attribute potential risks to nanotechnology."

Which is why I support Ars' moderation of comments that violate the posting guidelines.

But the new comment rating system is a step too far. I have been rated to the point of my comment being collapsed for comments which were civil, well within the posting guidelines, but simply unpopular. That's simply group suppression of open discourse, and it's what we humans love to do when given the chance.

I read all collapsed comments. Yes, some are clearly downrated simply for being unpopular though usually it's not dramatically downvoted - still, that means a lot of readers will never read such perfectly legitimate comments and opinions which is active suppression.

And by raising personal, uninformed opinion to the same level - literally on the same page - as the news being delivered, ultimately quite dangerous to public understanding of scientific work or current events.

Yeah, I agree. I think our culture currently promotes a sort of intellectual equivalency, where everybody's opinion on a topic carries equal weight and every side gets a say and teach the controversy and everybody gets a vote, and this only bolsters that with anonymity and a total lack of accountability. I do support an open - truly open and transparent - exchange of ideas where everyone's credibility and qualification is on the table alongside their opinion, but that's not what we've got with comment threads.

I often turn to the comments immediately since it's unlikely that the author is always an authority on the subject. Many times the comments can give a much broader context to the article (as long as they're civil).

I would agree, except you have to remember the 'audience bubble' of a particular site that you're talking about.

This kind of method is likely to produce good results with a readership such as Ars'; however, results can become increasingly unreliable as you progress to sites whose fundamental goals are not to provide logical and thorough explanation of science and policy, but rather to garner support for a particular ideology or to fear-monger.

What I find worrying is really the level of science literacy. With a decent level of science literacy then I don't really think that comments sections or dubious reporting are that big a threat.

The sad truth is that most people have no idea what science is, does, or how it works. And it took me until my thirties to understand this stuff properly, so I can't really say that I have been a poster child of scientific thought (I was interested in science but didn't know how science hypothesizes, tests, and reports stuff).

To say that learning science changes your worldview and changes how you evaluate what you read is an understatement, and I would like to see the basics of science, the actual POINT of science and the thinking behind the method being taught from a young age.

With that sort of knowledge then biased reporting, and biases in comments should be a minor issue.

Also, this "upvoting/downvoting"-trend is an absolute pain. Who cares about up- and downvotes? Why did Ars jump on the wagon and follow this trend? I don't care if people like my opinion or not, nor should anyone else—it's the internet, at last.

PS: You can downvote as much as you want, I won't see it since I blocked the up/downvote fields with my adblocker.

Allie Wilkinson / Allie is a freelance contributor to Ars Technica. She received a B.A. in Environmental Studies from Eckerd College and a Certificate in Conservation Biology from Columbia University's Earth Institute Center for Environmental Sustainability.